2 Answers
2

Yathābhūta is not correct in pali-sentence. We have to put the declension-mark at the end of yathābhūta, such as yathābhūtaṃ, before put it in the sentence.

Yathābhūta is adjective/adverb which is not complete, not ready to use, because the properties of word (vibhatti;case-endings;declension): preposition(sambandha), amount(vacana), and gender(liṅga), etc., must put at the end of every words, except ready-made-noun (nipāta), some standalone-prefix (upasagga-nipāta; I'm not sure for linguistic name), and compound-word (samāsa). So, it can not come alone, and you can not found only yathābhūta alone in pāli. It should to be yathābhūtaṃ (si-vibhatti), yathābhūtañāṇadassanaṃ (Deleted vibhatti because of compound-word; Vibhatti still be, but it disappear by pali-processing), yathābhūtena (nā-vibhatti), etc.

Buddha have to cut the big sutta in DN/MN for the students who not smart enough to enlighten/understand/memorize at once. So, you can notice my reference are from DN&MN&SN&KN, and actually AN as well.

Pāli has a very strong structure. This is the reason why we can understand tipitaka's content by just fluent reciting&memorizing. But because of the complicate detail of Dhamma, so when we translate tipitaka to the other languages, such as english or especilly thai, we will lose many important words' properties. Then we can not understand/analysis/find the fact from some translation.

"Svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo-the best dhamma was taught by buddha." is not just the psalms, but it is the fact by the linguistics and the truth.

To summarise: in Pali, an adjective is declined to match the noun it qualifies -- i.e. to match the noun's gender (masculine, feminine, or neuter), the noun's case (e.g. nominative, accusative, etc.), and whether the noun is singular or plural. Therefore you won't find the adjective yathābhūta written as such, because when it's used in a sentence its ending changes (to match its noun) according to the rules of declension.
– ChrisW♦Jun 2 '18 at 2:04

1

@ChrisW You shouldn't summarize like that because yathābhūta can qualifies verb, too. And when it qualifies verb, it will not depend on verb's vibhatti or noun's vibhatti, it will use only karana-vibhatti to be adverb. The summary should be something like this: yathābhūta is not correct in sentence. We have to put the declension-mark at the end of yathābhūta, such as yathābhūtaṃ, before put it in the sentence.
– BonnJun 2 '18 at 2:33

Thanks Bonn and @Chris. You've been really helpful. As far as I understand yathābhūtaṃ will add a relation to what in English would be the pronoun it, am I right? I have two more questions: Can yathābhūta be used as a term or should it be always used in a sentece? If it can be used as a term, how would you translate it?
– OscarJun 3 '18 at 6:45

I haven't seen how yathābhūta is used in practice. Where is yathābhūta even used? I can only find yathābhūtaṃ.

But grammatically I presume that an "adjective" would qualify a noun (e.g. "he sees a true thing"), whereas an "adverb" qualifies a verb (e.g. "he truly sees a thing").

I know the blank space might change the context, but I've found the 4 variations, so I'm hopping you know something more about this

I don't know about the Pali scripts, but in some scripts there are no blank spaces in the script, forexamplethetextiswrittenlikethis and it's up to the reader to know where each word ends (I think it's like that when you have to understand any spoken language too).

So "according to the truth" or "true" or "truly" is a common translation.

Bhūta also apparently means things like "creatures", "beings", "biological kingdoms", "elements" -- so I might translate it as "seeing things according to their nature", or "seeing the nature of thing" (or, possibly, "naturally seeing things" or "seeings things naturally").

It could be translated "seeing things in their proper categories" -- for example AN 4.179 ...

Reverend Ānanda, it’s because some sentient beings don’t really understand which perceptions make things worse, which keep things steady, which lead to distinction, and which lead to penetration.

... talks about "really understanding" whether a perception belongs to one of three or four categories.

It also means "everything", "nature", and "the result of becoming" -- so it might mean "seeing things as natural".
Buddhism has a lot to say about "all created things" (e.g. it says sabbe sankhara anicca) ... so perhaps that too should be included in the view (see e.g. SN 22.55).

According to the context in which it's used (in sentences, in suttas), it's often associated with samadhi and enlightenment.

Thanks for the answer. I'm still confused in some way. Perhaps, I'm making a mistake. The term I'm looking for tells to look at reality "as it is". I just read one of Osho's books an he uses the term "yatha bhtuam" to make this point out, but in some other sources I've found it written as "yatha bhuta" like in this link [Reality in Buddhism] (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism) I know the blank space might change the context, but I've found the 4 variations, so I'm hopping you know something more about this. Thanks a lot!
– OscarJun 1 '18 at 15:56

@Oscar I added to the answer ... does that answer your query?
– ChrisW♦Jun 1 '18 at 19:57